Global Warming

[shadd_]

I find it incredible that these scientists thought they could determine the quality of the ice by looking at satellite photos.

Quote, "But the satellites the experts relied on were misleading because the rotten ice looked sturdy on the surface and has a similar superficial temperature, Dr. Barber explained."

Experts? Experts on ice quality do not rely on photos to determine ice quality.

All these scientists in such a rush for research dollars, letting the simplest of details pass them by.

Too bad about the ice. Hopefully something can be done. Personally I'd like to see coal and oil go the way of the dinosaurs. Tired of breathing that shit in.

BTEX = BAD

[shadd_]

Ahh what the hell,

Climate Emails Stoke Debate
Scientists' Leaked Correspondence Illustrates Bitter Feud over Global Warming

Some emails also refer to efforts by scientists who believe man is causing global warming to exclude contrary views from important scientific publications.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1258834 ... ence-frame

I've been following this since it broke about a week ago.

I would like to know all the causes of climate change, not just the ones hand picked by a select few scientists. We have such a hard-on to blame ourselves that we will surely miss other important causes. There is no denying there are other factors to climate change, but we will never know because these studies will never get published.

[shadd_]

Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process
Eduardo Zorita, November 2009

Short answer: because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore.
A longer answer: My voice is not very important. I belong to the climate-research infantry, publishing a few papers per year, reviewing a few manuscript per year and participating in a few research projects. I do not form part of important committees, nor I pursue a public awareness of my activities. My very minor task in the public arena was to participate as a contributing author in the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC.

By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication. My area of research happens to be the climate of the past millennia, where I think I am appreciated by other climate-research 'soldiers'. And it happens that some of my mail exchange with Keith Briffa and Timothy Osborn can be found in the CRU-files made public recently on the internet.

To the question of legality or ethicalness of reading those files I will write a couple of words later.

I may confirm what has been written in other places: research in some areas of climate science has been and is full of machination, conspiracies, and collusion, as any reader can interpret from the CRU-files. They depict a realistic, I would say even harmless, picture of what the real research in the area of the climate of the past millennium has been in the last years. The scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas.

These words do not mean that I think anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. On the contrary, it is a question which we have to be very well aware of. But I am also aware that in this thick atmosphere -and I am not speaking of greenhouse gases now- editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations,even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. In this atmosphere, Ph D students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the 'politically correct picture'. Some, or many issues, about climate change are still not well known. Policy makers should be aware of the attempts to hide these uncertainties under a unified picture. I had the 'pleasure' to experience all this in my area of research.

I thank explicitely Keith Briffa and Tim Osborn for their work in the formulation of one Chapter of the IPCC report. As it destills from these emails, they withstood the evident pressure of other IPCC authors, not experts in this area of research, to convey a distorted picture of our knowledge of the hockey-stick graph.

Is legal or ethical to read the CRU files? I am not a layer. It seems that if the files had been hacked this would constitute an illegal act. If they have been leaked it could be a whistle blower action protected by law. I think it is not unethical to read them. Once published, I feel myself entitled to read how some researchers tried to influence reviewers to scupper the publication of our work on the 'hockey stick graph' or to read how some IPCC authors tried to exclude this work from the IPCC Report on very dubious reasons. Also, these mails do not contain any personal information at all. They are an account of many dull daily activities of typical climatologists, together with a realistic account of very troubling professional behavior.

http://coast.gkss.de/staff/zorita/myview.html

[feedback]

it's very unfortunate that these retards were messing with climate data. It doesn't change everything, but it puts others' credibility under suspicion.

[shadd_]

Agreed.

The atmosphere Zorita speaks of is a shame really. All anyone has to do is somehow relate their research with AGW and it's automatically true, no questions (allowed to be) asked.

How is the public supposed to know what evidence is legitimate and which is bullshit?

Mind you this was the GWB era. These people had a good example to follow.

[GONNAFISTYA]

lol

I'd forgetten about this thread and how stupid shiznit was/is/forever will be.

Let's all just come to grips with the fact that doing something to prevent global warming gets in the way of the money flow of those currently hoarding all the money. Until governments get over the hurtle of worrying about the livelihood of a few rich people (who have influence only because of their money) then it'll never change.

The only reason there's debate about this is because some people are worried that global warming is bad for business and will prevent them from buying a third yacht....which ironically they'll need when the ocean rises 10 metres...and when it happens you can bet your life they won't share any of their yachts with anyone else, except their rich and powerful friends.

In short, world destruction will occur purely because of greed.

[seremtan]

The atmosphere Zorita speaks of is a shame really. All anyone has to do is somehow relate their research with AGW and it's automatically true, no questions (allowed to be) asked.

more like: all they have to do is study something fashionable (like AGW) and the research grants flow like wine

[plained]

oh lol

dude save the world it was ur fault walk around and mind ur drink cartoon

dont forget to support the rallys lol

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/theagend ... 20:00:00.0

shadd, you might be interested in that...

[shadd_]

Yeah I had already watched. He makes some good points but I think he tries to minimize the effect that the religion of AGW has on the ability of research not in line with AGW to come to the forefront and actually be taken seriously. If it's not for AGW, it's more or less dismissed with a wave of the hand by the monopoly of AGW that is IPCC and CERN.

It's not just 3-4 scientists like he claims but a whole bureaucracy that vehemently denies anyone with opposing views from participating in the discussion.

Some of these scientists have stepped down pending investigations into their behaviour. We do not need people like that in charge of possibly mankinds most pressing issue. Hopefully this small kick in the ass will make the whole process more transparent and also allow more participants to join the discussion.

I'm not looking for information to debunk AGW, I'm looking for any information regarding climate change, be it man made or natural.

Nothing would make me happier than ridding ourselves of oil/gas/coal. There is as much danger to human health from the effects of organic hydrocarbons on the body as there is from climate change.

Here is a humorous take on the email leak from Jon Stewart.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Wt0ZaXu_CA

[feedback]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/0 ... 71223.html

Global warming data faked = hoax?

[xer0s]

I doubt it's a hoax. The guy stepped down from his position. If it wasn't true, why wouldn't he just stay and defend his honor?

[plained]

:iwantobelieve:

[xer0s]

http://www.cphpost.dk/component/content ... ?task=view

Free sex.

[seremtan]

I cant imagine anything more degrading than having to have sex with those Climate Clowns, paid or unpaid. The smart working girls of Copenhagen have realized that no matter what they agree to in advance these weasels will just change the numbers on them and then pretend they lost their wallets so why bother charging. Thats what these con-men do for a living. And how about that mayor? I'll bet she's a hottie. Probably a post-modern Feminist-Leninist with a waxed moustache. Its not prostitution she hates as much as someone making a profit, even though I'm sure the state takes a bigger cut than any pimp. So let the horny Climate Liars have a spree while they get together to tell us how much more taxes we have to pay to fix the weather.

rof

[Fender]

Major Antarctic glacier is 'past its tipping point' (newscientist.com)

[bitWISE]

Don't worry guys. This is all part of God's plan. (This is from my news feed, guess which reply is mine)

[andyman]

God is proving that it IS INDEED WINTER....


im spreading that image like salt in DC.

[Fender]

This is making the rounds: Global Warming in Last 15 Years Insignificant, U.K.'s Top Climate Scientist Admits

And this is useful: How to talk to a climate skeptic

[plained]

saw thison another site

http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/ ... -the-world

http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/ ... -the-world